Re: To MPL or not.
Damyan Ivanov <divanov@creditreform.bg> wrote:
> IDPL 1.0 is MPL-derivate.
> http://flamerobin.sourceforge.net/license.html
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.0.txt
[...]
> My question is: Will FlameRobin be accepted in main?
Only ftpmasters can say for sure. I think this is a practical problem
for ftpmasters and mirror operators:
3.2. Availability of Source Code. [...]
if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must
remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date
it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a
subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made
available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that
the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic
Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
and I think this is a lawyerbomb:
3.4. Intellectual Property Matters
a) [...] If Contributor obtains such knowledge after the
Modification is made available as described in Section 3.2,
Contributor shall promptly modify the LEGAL file in all copies
Contributor makes available thereafter and shall take other steps
(such as notifying appropriate mailing lists or newsgroups)
reasonably calculated to inform those who received the Covered
Code that new knowledge has been obtained.
> Or should I try to convince upstream to change the license?
I think so, if you can. Might be a difficult sell, though.
> Is IDPL 1.0 more DFSG-friendly than MPL 1.0? (I make this
> assumption because noone objected against recently uploaded firebird2)
What are the differences?
That assumption probably isn't reliable.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: